Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#101

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

TinkersW wrote: post #56
RustySpottedCat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a zero chance the company with the best AI LLM models would not get involved in weaponization, willingly or not. DAI is going to be one of the first things the next administration brings back, mark my words. Saying it's discriminatory is like saying affirmative action is discriminatory

California banned affirmative action in 1996 precisely because it is discriminatory. I can only hope the dems are smart enough to drop DEI for good, I don't think Trump is healthy for the US.

A recent Gallup poll has reported that "...Support for a more moderate Democratic Party among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents has grown by 11 percentage points, to 45%, since 2021..." so the Democrats seem to be headed in that direction.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-mo...

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#102

Post by ASinclair »

zombiwoof wrote: post #35
ASinclair wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concept was well intentioned but, quite ironically, these programs turned into a hub of biased discriminatory behavior and it was becoming increasingly hard to paint them as anything else. I think the programs basically did nothing. They were ineffective. Yet, that made a lot of people really angry.

I’d argue they had reverse intentions in that it over fit on discriminatory hiring (against white men)

More like against Chinese and Indian men. That’s where the hiring will go now that these programs are gone.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#103

Post by sympil »

yagbo7 wrote: post #87
sympil wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is not about preferential hiring. It’s the opposite. It’s about broadening the perspectives so that one group that has enjoyed historical preferential hiring no longer gets preferential treatment.

That’s a circular definition; stating it’s not about preferential hiring but then saying it’s about not giving a certain demographic preferential treatment. “Enjoyed” is not the right word either. It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is, and DEI initiatives give preferential treatment to those who are not in those demographics, in an attemp…

“Enjoyed” is not the right word either.

For the last 500 years white men have had preferential treatment when it came to hiring. Indeed a stronger word than “enjoyed” is merited. But you think using “enjoyed” is too strong a word to use to describe such a state of affairs?

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#104

Post by yagbo7 »

kadoban wrote: post #95
yagbo7 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a circular definition; stating it’s not about preferential hiring but then saying it’s about not giving a certain demographic preferential treatment. “Enjoyed” is not the right word either. It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is, and DEI initiatives give preferential treatment to those who are not in those demographics, in an attemp…

> It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is Bigots have used that one forever, defining the current state of affairs as natural and any attempt to improve things as .

Cool your jets. I called a spade a spade, I never said anything about it being natural.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#105

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

wyldfire wrote: post #46
zombiwoof wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you at Apple where I worked for almost a decade in the last year I see teams 99% made up of DEI hires. Apple should share the data.

I'm genuinely curious how you know which ones are which. Is it indicated like on their badge?

I’d assume that demographics should somewhat match real demographics. If your country is 50% white people and 50% black people, you’d see that in hiring in general with some variance.

You’d probably have to adjust for socioeconomic level etc. It’s no good if all the hires in the low paying jobs are one type of people.

I don’t think it’s impossible to tell even if “99%” is hyperbole.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#106

Post by cauch »

whimsicalism wrote: post #84
cauch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that a big bunch of studies really point to the fact that if you have two persons with a real merit score of 8/10 (for example), the one from a minority will be considered, due to unconscious biases, as having a score of 7/10 instead. So, yes, there is a correction and this correction is based on race because this is the correct variable to de-bias the evaluation. But does it mean "preferential"?…

i’m very familiar with the arguments around DEI/AA. as i said in a different comment, i’m in favor of limited AA. We have little data from jobs for various reasons - but if we look at the data from universities, the “correction” is clearly far in excess of any bias by race against same score candidates, which is why URM admits typically have significantly lower scores. It is only a correction if you are saying that i…

> i’m very familiar with the arguments around DEI/AA. as i said in a different comment, i’m in favor of limited AA.

You were saying "maybe that’s okay, but that is absolutely what it means". Now you are saying that DEI/AA is not preferential, some applications of it are.

> but if we look at the data from universities, the “correction” is clearly far in excess of any bias by race against same score candidates

You cannot easily compare such numbers, and in this case, "clearly far in excess" is just totally subjective. This is typically where biases and cognitive dissonance are the most easy to creep in.

> There might be merit to the claim but it does also mean that the end result is you are picking worse candidates “on paper” on the basis of their skin color.

But if you don't apply any correction, you are picking worse candidates "on paper" on the basis of their skin color.

That the fundamental flaw of people who are so vocal about the over-correction of DEI/AA: they care a lot about over-correcting but don't seem to care that much about under-correcting. Over-correcting is a big injustice, under-correcting is just something that may happen, hey, what can you do, right?

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#107

Post by kadoban »

yagbo7 wrote: post #104
kadoban wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s better explained by stating the tech industry is dominated by certain demographics because that’s just how it is Bigots have used that one forever, defining the current state of affairs as natural and any attempt to improve things as .

Cool your jets. I called a spade a spade, I never said anything about it being natural.

> just how it is

Yeah, you found a different synonym.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#108

Post by Brian_K_White »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #81
edmundsauto wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a more nuanced take on whether professional sports are actually a meritocracy. It depends on the level at which you look. Yes, in any given event it’s generally fair to say the rules are equitable. However, look at golf - we can either accept white people have some genetic advantage, or that access is not equal and the best talent never got a chance to develop. This could be extended to other leagues as well.…

> look at golf Tiger Woods is probably the only professional golfer that the average person knows by name.

hey everyone, Tiger Woods!

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#109

Post by pfisherman »

gotoeleven wrote: post #23
Larrikin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna835836 Seems like his firing was completely justified. But is also a knock against Google for hiring him in the first place.

You know neuroticism is a term of art in psychology, right? It's a value neutral term, not a pejorative. If your argument is that he deserves firing because he's sexist and your evidence that he's sexist is he called women neurotic then you're part of the reason we can't have reasoned debates.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that people should not have interpreted what he wrote as offensive. But in fact a very large number of people did.

Re: Google defends scrapping AI pledges and DEI goals in all-staff meeting

#110

Post by gitremote »

kbrannigan wrote: post #82
zombiwoof wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you at Apple where I worked for almost a decade in the last year I see teams 99% made up of DEI hires. Apple should share the data.

are you saying that white people are inherently more qualified than anybody else .

People remember famous scientists like Einstein, Feynman, or even Bill Nye the Science Guy, and believe it's obvious that white men are more qualified in STEM, and anyone denying it is in denial. They ignore that before the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, discrimination was legal in the US, and that Ivy League universities only started admitting women from 1969 to 1981 (depending on the university).

People who say they can tell the percentage of DEI hires on sight—up to two significant digits from a data set, like "99%"—imagine that the past was a meritocracy, because they never grew past these simple stories to encourage children to pursue science.

Post reply on HN